res judicata doctrine in New York

2025"Under the doctrine of res judicata, 'once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy."' Jones v. Flushing Bank, 212 A.D.3d 791, 793 , 183 N.Y.S.3d 458 (2d Dept. 2023); See also O'Brien v Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353, 357 (1981); Cira/do v JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, 140 A.D.3d 912, 913 (2d Dept 2016).

2024Pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, "once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy" ( O'Brien v City of Syracuse , 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]).

2025Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint in its entirety based on its finding that plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata ( see Matter of Josey v Goord , 9 NY3d 386, 389-390 [2007]; see also Matter of Hunter , 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]).

2025The plaintiff appeals. "'Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding'" ( Ward v Klein , 203 AD3d 1217 , 1218, quoting Bravo v Atlas Capital Group, LLC , 196 AD3d 627, 628 ). "'The rule applies not only to claims actually litigated but also to claims that could have been raised in the prior litigation'" ( Simmons v Jones Law Grou

2022The doctrine of res judicata requires, among other things, "a valid final judgment" on a prior action between the parties ( Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co. , 93 NY2d 343, 347 [1999]), which is lacking here.

2022Under the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment bars future actions between the same parties on the same cause of action, as well as all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions, even if based upon different theories or [*2]if seeking a different remedy ( see Simmons v Trans Express Inc. , 37 NY3d 107 , 111; Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co. , 93 NY2d 343, 347 ).

2000The doctrine of res judicata provides that, “as to the parties in a litigation and those in privity with them, a judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the issues of fact and questions of law necessarily decided therein in any subsequent action” (Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 485 ).

2000Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see, O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353 ; Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481 ).

2023Under the doctrine of res judicata, when a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy ( Reilly v Reid , 45 NY2d 24, 29 [1978]; O'Brien v City of Syracuse , 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]).

2023Under the doctrine of res judicata, when a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy ( Reilly v Reid , 45 NY2d 24, 29 [1978]; O'Brien v City of Syracuse , 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]).

2023"Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final adjudication of a claim on the merits precludes relitigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions by a party or those in privity with a party" ( Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 140 AD3d 912, 913 [2016]; see Matter of Hunter , 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]; Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp. , 250 NY 304, 306-307 [1929]). " 'A judgment by default that has not been vacated is conclusive for res judicata purposes and encompasses the issues that were raised . . . in the prior action' " ( Tr

2023"Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final adjudication of a claim on the merits precludes relitigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions by a party or those in privity with a party" ( Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 140 AD3d 912, 913 [2016]; see Matter of Hunter , 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]; Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp. , 250 NY 304, 306-307 [1929]). " 'A judgment by default that has not been vacated is conclusive for res judicata purposes and encompasses the issues that were raised . . . in the prior action' " ( Tr

2025Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint in its entirety based on its finding that plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata ( see Matter of Josey v Goord , 9 NY3d 386, 389-390 [2007]; see also Matter of Hunter , 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]).

2025Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint in its entirety based on its finding that plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata ( see Matter of Josey v Goord , 9 NY3d 386, 389-390 [2007]; see also Matter of Hunter , 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]).

2025Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, a dismissal of a cause of action on the ground that it was barred by the applicable statute of limitations is "sufficiently close to the merits for claim preclusion purposes," and thus, the attempted relitigation of such a cause of action will be barred by the doctrine of res judicata ( Smith v Russell Sage Coll. , 54 NY2d at 194 ; see Hendrickson v Philbor Motors, Inc. , 102 AD3d 251 , 260; Nostrom v County of Suffolk , 100 AD3d 974, 976 ).

2012The current claim is also barred by the doctrine of res judicata, since all claims asserted against defendant Riese Organization in the 2003 action were dismissed on statute of limitations grounds in a December 2005 order that, contrary to plaintiffs contention, finally disposed of these claims (see Burke v Crosson, 85 NY2d 10, 15 [1995]; Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185, 194 [1981]), and the claim could have been, although it was not, raised against the remaining defendants in the 2003 action (see Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]).

2024Co. , 47 AD3d 855, 855 ).

2019Co. , 47 AD3d 855, 855 ). " A stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice without reservation of right or limitation of the claims disposed of is entitled to preclusive effect under the doctrine of res judicata'" ( Cora v Ranjan , 98 AD3d 598, 599 , quoting Liberty Assoc. v Etkin , 69 AD3d 681,682-683 ; see Matter of Chiantella v Vishnick , 84 AD3d 797, 798 ; Matter of Hofmann , 287 AD2d 119, 123 ).

2026Contrary to the mother's contention, the allegations in the petition that she derivatively neglected the child were not barred by the doctrine of res judicata, because the allegations against the mother in the prior proceedings concerning the child were not dismissed on the merits ( see Matter of Tekiara F. [Gayle A.E.] , 116 AD3d 852, 853; Matter of Demetrius B. , 28 AD3d 1249, 1250; see also Djoganopoulos v Polkes , 67 AD3d 726, 727).

2026Contrary to the mother's contention, the allegations in the petition that she derivatively neglected the child were not barred by the doctrine of res judicata, because the allegations against the mother in the prior proceedings concerning the child were not dismissed on the merits ( see Matter of Tekiara F. [Gayle A.E.] , 116 AD3d 852 , 853; Matter of Demetrius B. , 28 AD3d 1249, 1250 ; see also Djoganopoulos v Polkes , 67 AD3d 726, 727 ).

2025"Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final adjudication of a claim on the merits precludes relitigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions by a party or those in privity with a party" ( Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 140 AD3d 912, 913 ; see Eaddy v US Bank N.A. , 180 AD3d 756, 758 ).

2025"Under the doctrine of res judicata, 'once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy."' Jones v. Flushing Bank, 212 A.D.3d 791, 793 , 183 N.Y.S.3d 458 (2d Dept. 2023); See also O'Brien v Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353, 357 (1981); Cira/do v JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, 140 A.D.3d 912, 913 (2d Dept 2016).

2024"The doctrine of res judicata bars a party from relitigating any claim which could have been or should have been litigated in a prior proceeding" ( Chapman Steamer Collective, LLC v KeyBank N.A. , 163 AD3d at 761 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "'A stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice without reservation of right or limitation of the claims disposed of is [*2]entitled to preclusive effect under the doctrine of res judicata'" ( Cora v Ranjan , 98 AD3d 598, 599 , quoting Liberty Assoc. v Etkin , 69 AD3d 681, 682-683 ; see DeSouza v LSREF2 Apex 2, LLC , 171 AD3d 702 , 703).

2019Co. , 47 AD3d 855, 855 ). " A stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice without reservation of right or limitation of the claims disposed of is entitled to preclusive effect under the doctrine of res judicata'" ( Cora v Ranjan , 98 AD3d 598, 599 , quoting Liberty Assoc. v Etkin , 69 AD3d 681,682-683 ; see Matter of Chiantella v Vishnick , 84 AD3d 797, 798 ; Matter of Hofmann , 287 AD2d 119, 123 ).

2022Wormser's claim is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata, because the dismissal was without prejudice by the New Jersey appellate court and therefore was not a final determination on the merits ( see id. ["A dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to a forum selection clause requiring suit to be brought in some other jurisdiction is not an adjudication on the merits"]; see also Landau, P.C. v LaRossa, Mitchell & Ross , 11 NY3d 8 , 13 [2008] ["a dismissal 'without prejudice' lacks a necessary element of res judicata—by its terms such a judgment is not a final determination on

2022Wormser's claim is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata, because the dismissal was without prejudice by the New Jersey appellate court and therefore was not a final determination on the merits ( see id. ["A dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to a forum selection clause requiring suit to be brought in some other jurisdiction is not an adjudication on the merits"]; see also Landau, P.C. v LaRossa, Mitchell & Ross , 11 NY3d 8 , 13 [2008] ["a dismissal 'without prejudice' lacks a necessary element of res judicata—by its terms such a judgment is not a final determination on

2026Spitzer v Applied Card Sys., Inc. , 11 NY3d 105, 122 [2008] [internation citations omitted]; see also Hodes v Axelrod , 70 NY2d 364, 372 [1987] ["Simply stated, where there is a valid final judgment the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars future litigation between those parties on the same cause of action"]).

2026Spitzer v Applied Card Sys., Inc. , 11 NY3d 105, 122 [2008] [internation citations omitted]; see also Hodes v Axelrod , 70 NY2d 364, 372 [1987] ["Simply stated, where there is a valid final judgment the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars future litigation between those parties on the same cause of action"]).

2020Elizon also established the existence of a meritorious defense based on the doctrine of res judicata ( see SSJ Dev. of Sheepshead Bay I, LLC v Amalgamated Bank , 128 AD3d 674, 675 ; Bayer v City of New York , 115 AD3d 897, 898 ; Luscher v Arrua , 21 AD3d 1005, 1006-1007 ).

2019"Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final adjudication of a claim on the merits precludes relitigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions by a party or those in privity with a party" ( Djoganopoulos v Polkes , 67 AD3d 726, 727 ; see Luscher v Arrua , 21 AD3d 1005, 1006 ).

2011“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties or those in privity with them of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior action” (Barbieri v Bridge Funding, 5 AD3d 414, 415 [2004]; see Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]).

2010Addressing first defendant’s cross motion, we note that, "[u]nder the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties or those in privity with them of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions” (.Barbieri v Bridge Funding, 5 AD3d 414, 415 [2004]; see Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]; O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]).

2014“The doctrine of res judicata ‘operates to preclude the renewal of issues actually litigated and resolved in a prior proceeding as well as claims for different relief which arise out of the same factual grouping or transaction and which should have or could have been resolved in the prior proceeding’ ” (Luscher v Arrua, 21 AD3d 1005, 1006-1007 [2005], quoting Koether v Generalow, 213 AD2d 379, 380 [1995]; see Douglas Elliman, LLC v Bergere, 98 AD3d at 643 ; Panagio tou v Samaritan Vil., Inc., 88 AD3d 779, 780 [2011]; Union St.

2014“The doctrine of res judicata ‘operates to preclude the renewal of issues actually litigated and resolved in a prior proceeding as well as claims for different relief which arise out of the same factual grouping or transaction and which should have or could have been resolved in the prior proceeding’ ” (Luscher v Arrua, 21 AD3d 1005, 1006-1007 [2005], quoting Koether v Generalow, 213 AD2d 379, 380 [1995]; see Douglas Elliman, LLC v Bergere, 98 AD3d at 643 ; Panagio tou v Samaritan Vil., Inc., 88 AD3d 779, 780 [2011]; Union St.

2019Co. , 47 AD3d 855, 855 ). " A stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice without reservation of right or limitation of the claims disposed of is entitled to preclusive effect under the doctrine of res judicata'" ( Cora v Ranjan , 98 AD3d 598, 599 , quoting Liberty Assoc. v Etkin , 69 AD3d 681,682-683 ; see Matter of Chiantella v Vishnick , 84 AD3d 797, 798 ; Matter of Hofmann , 287 AD2d 119, 123 ).

2019The cause of action alleging breach of the housing merchant implied warranty was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as the claims encompassing that cause of action were identical to the claims brought in a prior action by an entity in privity with the current plaintiff, which was disposed of by stipulation of discontinuance "with prejudice" ( see Matter of Chiantella v Vishnick , 84 AD3d 797, 798 ).

2025"Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final adjudication of a claim on the merits precludes relitigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions by a party or those in privity with a party" ( Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 140 AD3d 912, 913 ; see Eaddy v US Bank N.A. , 180 AD3d 756, 758 ).

2024Under the doctrine of res judicata, "once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy" ( Chapman Steamer Collective, LLC v KeyBank N.A. , 163 AD3d 760 , 761 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Eaddy v US Bank N.A. , 180 AD3d 756, 758 ).

2015“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a party may not litigate a claim where a judgment on the merits exists from a prior action between the same parties involving the same subject matter” (Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005] [emphasis added]; see Myers v Meyers, 121 AD3d 762, 764 [2014]; Douglas Elliman, LLC v Bergere, 98 AD3d 642 [2012]; Hae Sheng Wang v Pao-Mei Wang, 96 AD3d 1005, 1007 [2012]).

2015Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. “ ‘Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the *857 merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding’ ” (Douglas Elliman, LLC v Bergere, 98 AD3d 642 , 642-643 [2012], quoting Abraham v Hermitage Ins.

2023As a preliminary matter, Glen Oaks failed to establish that the branch of the petition which was to compel the respondents to remove the terrace was barred by the doctrine of res judicata ( see Xiao Yang Chen v Fischer , 6 NY3d 94, 100 ; Matter of Reilly v Reid , 45 NY2d 24, 28 ) or by the statute of limitations ( see Matter of Cathie v Greenstein , 194 AD3d 925, 926 ; Village of Islandia v County of Suffolk , 162 AD3d 715 ).

2023The plaintiff's request for an award of maintenance arrears was properly denied pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata. "[I]n the context of a matrimonial action, the Court of Appeals has 'recognized that a final judgment of divorce settles the parties' rights pertaining not only to those issues that were actually litigated, but also to those that could have been litigated'" ( Nicodemus v Nicodemus , 124 AD3d 849, 851 , quoting Xiao Yang Chen v Fischer , 6 NY3d 94, 100 ).

2025"Under the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding" ( HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Pantel , 179 AD3d 650, 650-651 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Simmons v Trans Express Inc. , 37 NY3d 107 , 111).

2025"Under the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding" ( HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Pantel , 179 AD3d 650, 650-651 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Simmons v Trans Express Inc. , 37 NY3d 107 , 111).

2025Here, the court properly determined that the counterclaim to recover compensatory and punitive damages for conversion was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as granting the Goris the relief requested in that counterclaim would destroy or impair the rights established by the judgment in the Rye City Court proceeding ( see Pusey v Morales , 181 AD3d 621, 623; SSJ Dev. of Sheepshead Bay I, LLC v Amalgamated Bank , 128 AD3d 674, 675-676).

2025Here, the court properly determined that the counterclaim to recover compensatory and punitive damages for conversion was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as granting the Goris the relief requested in that counterclaim would destroy or impair the rights established by the judgment in the Rye City Court proceeding ( see Pusey v Morales , 181 AD3d 621, 623; SSJ Dev. of Sheepshead Bay I, LLC v Amalgamated Bank , 128 AD3d 674, 675-676).

2026The plaintiff appeals. "'Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been [*2]raised in the prior proceeding'" ( Bravo v Atlas Capital Group, LLC , 196 AD3d 627, 628 , quoting Blue Sky, LLC v Jerry's Self Stor., LLC , 145 AD3d 945, 946 ), "even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy" ( Kleinman v Weisman Law Group, P.C. , 176 AD3d 1046 ,

2022Marie appeals. "'Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding'" ( Bravo v Atlas Capital Group, LLC , 196 AD3d 627, 628 , quoting Blue Sky, LLC v Jerry's Self Stor., LLC , 145 AD3d 945, 946 ), "even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy" ( Kleinman v Weisman Law Group, P.C. , 176 AD3d 1046 , 1047). "'Th

2026The plaintiff appeals. "'Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been [*2]raised in the prior proceeding'" ( Bravo v Atlas Capital Group, LLC , 196 AD3d 627, 628 , quoting Blue Sky, LLC v Jerry's Self Stor., LLC , 145 AD3d 945, 946 ), "even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy" ( Kleinman v Weisman Law Group, P.C. , 176 AD3d 1046 ,

2025"For the doctrine of res judicata to be applied, there must have been, in the prior proceeding, a final judgment on the merits" ( Bayer v City of New York , 115 AD3d 897, 899 ).

2013Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Dana A. Mannor which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her on the ground that the causes of action asserted against her were barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see CPLR 3211 [a] [5]; Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 347 [1999]; O'Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]; Coliseum Towers Assoc. v County of Nassau, 217 AD2d 387, 390 [1996]).

2013Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Dana A. Mannor which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her on the ground that the causes of action asserted against her were barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see CPLR 3211 [a] [5]; Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 347 [1999]; O'Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]; Coliseum Towers Assoc. v County of Nassau, 217 AD2d 387, 390 [1996]).

2020"Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final adjudication of a claim on the merits precludes relitigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions by a party or those in privity with a party" ( Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 140 AD3d 912, 913 ; see Djoganopoulos v Polkes , 67 AD3d 726, 727 ; Sclafani v Story Book Homes , 294 AD2d 559, 559 ).

2017“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final adjudication of a claim on the merits precludes relitigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions by a party or those in privity with a party” (Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 140 AD3d 912, 913 [2016]; see Djoganopoulos v Polkes, 67 AD3d 726, 727 [2009]; Sclafani v Story Book Homes, 294 AD2d 559, 559 [2002]).

2017The doctrine of res judicata provides that “once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy” (O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]; see Dupps v Betancourt, 121 AD3d 746, 747 [2014]).

2016Under the doctrine of res judicata, “once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy” (O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]; see SSJ Dev. of Sheepshead Bay I, LLC v Amalgamated Bank, 128 AD3d 674, 675 [2015]; Dupps v Betancourt, 121 AD3d 746, 747 [2014]).